During the opening keynote at the Google I/O developer conference this morning, Google founder Sergey Brin bounded onto the stage for a surprise demo of the company’s experimental Google Glass project. To the delight of the crowd, a group of skydivers equipped with Google Glass headsets jumped out of a blimp and landed on the roof of the conference venue.

After that stunning introduction and an impressive demo, Brin announced that conference attendees would have the unique opportunity to preorder a special Google Glass "Explorer Edition" test unit. The Explorer Edition costs $1500 and is expected to ship next year. After a brief wait in line this afternoon, I was able to register a preorder.

Google Glass is an experiment in the field of wearable computing. The device consists of a heads-up display and camera embedded in the frame of a pair of glasses. It is designed to be worn on the head, allowing the user to take pictures and look up information. The concept was unveiled earlier this year and is still experimental.

It’s important to note that the Explorer Edition (which hasn’t received FCC certification) is not intended for regular consumers. It is a preproduction model that Google is making available to a limited audience of partners and third-party developers.

After I completed my registration, I received a commemorative glass block engraved with the number of the Google Glass unit that I will receive. According to a Google representative, the corresponding number will also be printed on the unit itself. My block, as you can see in the picture above, is engraved with the number 673.

Pre-ordering the Google Glass Explorer Edition at Google I/O.

Because the Google Glass Explorer Edition is not an end-user product, we will not be reviewing it as such. I’ll be writing about it from the perspective of a third-party developer, sharing my impressions as I test the unit. Assuming that an SDK is made available, I’m looking forward to shedding some light on what it is like to build applications for Google’s wearable computer.

Google Glass is an ambitious concept that promises to change the way that people communicate and access information. We are eager to see what kind of opportunities such a platform can open up for application developers.

If the camera also does video and the product actually goes into mass production I can foresee an entire new market on the web of watching peoples everyday lives 24/7 365. Also, POV porn will reach new highs.

If the camera also does video and the product actually goes into mass production I can foresee an entire new market on the web of watching peoples everyday lives 24/7 365. Also, POV porn will reach new highs.

Well its a good thing these are opt-in then. I wouldn't want you to be forced to wear these, it would be despicable.

In seriousness though, why does every advance, no matter where from, seem to invoke a "I would buy/wear/hug/have sex with/eat that if you paid me" response from somebody? Are they secretly hoping somebody will pay them, because nobody really cares if you will turn down money in exchange for using stuff.

And six seven years from now Apple will come out with this same stuff, and the whole world will collectively have an orgasm.

I hate feeding trolls, but I'll bite. No doubt you have certain past events in mind. Generally the way it happens is that what Apple comes out with is markedly different from what's been done before. A lot of people say "The market's already mature. Apple won't be able to just waltz in" because they think the presence of lots of undercooked ideas is the same thing as a vibrant marketplace. Then when they see it, they'll say "How stupid. That'll never work" because it's not what they expected. And then people who aren't trembling with the effort of pre-judging the race to fit their own expectations use the product, and they say, "Holy crap, I love that!" And by the next year, everyone will be copying Apple as closely as possible, saying "No fair. This is the only realistic way to do it, and Apple won't let us!". They'll see-saw between saying "Well, of course Apple was able to just waltz in. I mean, it was a nascent market that hadn't really existed" on the one hand and "Well company X did it first" on the other. Is that kind of what you mean? This, at least, is precisely what happened with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad.

Personally, though, I'm not such a partisan that I can't look at the work of more than one company at a time and appreciate another their good works. I liked Wave, for instance. Too many of Google's ideas are like that though. Cool in concept, but undernourished and not destined for a long and vibrant existence.

What they haven't told you, is that you have to pick up the unit in person, and they tattoo the unit number on your forehead as a simple DRM method to ensure you don't resell the glasses to someone else.

First I wondered if the date was 4/1. Then I nearly pooped myself as I realized this will make the street view vehicles look like a high school science project in comparision (as far as google data collection goes).

And six seven years from now Apple will come out with this same stuff, and the whole world will collectively have an orgasm.

I hate feeding trolls, but I'll bite. No doubt you have certain past events in mind. Generally the way it happens is that what Apple comes out with is markedly different from what's been done before. A lot of people say "The market's already mature. Apple won't be able to just waltz in" because they think the presence of lots of undercooked ideas is the same thing as a vibrant marketplace. Then when they see it, they'll say "How stupid. That'll never work" because it's not what they expected. And then people who aren't trembling with the effort of pre-judging the race to fit their own expectations use the product, and they say, "Holy crap, I love that!" And by the next year, everyone will be copying Apple as closely as possible, saying "No fair. This is the only realistic way to do it, and Apple won't let us!". They'll see-saw between saying "Well, of course Apple was able to just waltz in. I mean, it was a nascent market that hadn't really existed" on the one hand and "Well company X did it first" on the other. Is that kind of what you mean? This, at least, is precisely what happened with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad.

Personally, though, I'm not such a partisan that I can't look at the work of more than one company at a time and appreciate another their good works. I liked Wave, for instance. Too many of Google's ideas are like that though. Cool in concept, but undernourished and not destined for a long and vibrant existence.

Almost completely, but not totally, off topic: I'm fairly certain that the skydivers jumped out of a Zeppelin NT which operates out of Moffett Field (in Mountain View, just around the corner from Google), and not a blimp.

Yes, it looks a lot like a blimp, and I'm sure only an airship geek would actually care about the differences. I can't help it. I care.

As far as the glasses go, I'm more interested in the heads up display aspect of them than the wearable camera part. I hope to hear more about that as Ryan plays with the SDK. I'm already un-dateable (see comment above), so these really can't hurt my prospects.